AAAS, God's Evangelists.

March 22, 2006

(A) Oct 18 2005, Dov, in Brights forum.

One of my recent postings dealt with the AAAS DoESR, Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion. Now here is this post-affair report by the AAAS:

" A NASA research scientist and a rabbinical scholar discussed the possibility of a Genesis beyond the Earth in a 22 September lecture organized by AAAS's Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER). Read about the scientific and theological implications of life evolving on Mars billions of years ago, long since killed by ultraviolet radiation but with microbial specimens possibly preserved by the deep cold of Mars' permafrost: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/1004mars.shtml.&quot;

And , very interestingly, Christopher P. McKay, a research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center in California, said that if exploration of Mars shows the planet did have water and all the other requirements for life for a long period and, yet, had no "second Genesis," then that would be an argument against the theory of life evolving naturally without other influences. Such a finding would not be absolute proof against the theory for the unaided formation of life, "but it will certainly give me reason to pause," he said.

On which I can only remark that it is a strange "research scientist" indeed that suggests a probable conclusion from a state of incomplete data (i.e. if life not found). This is just the calibre of scientist that religions need. Or, again, maybe he's a very capable technologist but for AAAS and for NASA there is no difference between science and technology.

(B) Oct 19 2005

The twain shall never meet? They do cooperate to prevent enlightenment…

The Sept 2005 DoSER post-affair report was related on 4 Oct 2005 by AAAS Paul Recer. He concludes the report with: " AAAS established the Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER) in 1995 to facilitate communication between scientific and religious communities. DoSER builds on AAAS's long-standing commitment to relate scientific knowledge and technological development to the purposes and concerns of society at large. The objectives are to contribute to the level of scientific understanding in religious communities and to promote multidisciplinary education and scholarship of the ethical and religious implications of advancements in science and technology".

My simplistic mind is impressed clearly and glaringly with the hypocrisy of the above para.

And it is hilariously and pathetically amusing, and also instructive, to read some additional paras from the above AAAS report :

"In response to McKay's lecture, Rabbi Nancy Fuchs-Kreimer, director of the Religious Studies Program at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, said a "second Genesis" would present some theological problems for some religions.

For Jews, the discovery of extraterrestrial life would raise some interesting religious questions. For instance, Fuchs-Kreimer said, the Jewish Sabbath (Babylonian origin. DH) is based on a seven-day week with cycles of day and night every 24 hours. If a planet with intelligent life has another type of light-dark cycle, when would the Sabbath be observed?

But she said the prospect of researchers finding a Genesis beyond the Earth does not threaten her religious beliefs because "our God is big enough to accomplish it all.

"The primary Jewish theological position is that God is in charge of it all," she said. "Whatever you find, God will grow as big as we need God to be for the information you bring us."

McKay said if exploration of Mars shows the planet did have water and all the other requirements for life for a long period and, yet, had no "second Genesis," then that would be an argument against the theory of life evolving naturally without other influences.

Such a finding would not be absolute proof against the theory for the unaided formation of life, "but it will certainly give me reason to pause," he said.

(2) "Search for truth" applies only to religion, it is religiouslang. "Truth" is not a scientifically usable term.

(3) Scientifically there either is or isn't evidence/data; there are no "grades" of evidence. Religiously evidence is what persons accept/believe.

Recently I entered in my blog a note about some religious Jewish "scientists". I realize now that it applies also to "scientists" members of other religions. Moreover, I now should'nt be surprised to learn that, religiously typical, religious denominations would embark on a grand discussion to establish whose god is The God-of-and-since-singularity. Here is the note:

————————————————————–

PS 25 October 2006

Solution of science-religion incongruity by some Jews.

Some of the Jewish or Israeli-Jewish equivalents of the AAAS top officers have adopted an 'evolutionarily' very interesting, even if irritatingly hypocritical, attitude in regards to the basic inherent science-religion incongruity. First they claim or imply that THEIR concepts-attitudes of 'Jewish thought' represent THE 'legitimate/real' traditional Jewish religious positions. Next they hypocritically and arrogantly, with duly interpreted citations from Jewish literature, appropriate for THEIR Jewish god all of science at all times past and future, from prior to the big-bang until the end of the cosmos and beyond it, thus explaining that each and every and all the totality of scientific phenomena and laws and comprehensions in the universe/nature are revelations of THEIR Jewish god's program and doings. This allows them to do what the AAAS does, i.e. to maintain two separate realms, a natural and 'spiritual' realms, not only without embarassment of incongruity between the two but, furthermore, with religious/phenotypic pride.

Dov

—————————-

PS 5 November 2006

More On Arrogant Hypocrisy Of Some Religious Jewish Academicians

The above Stand on the appropriation of science by the Jewish god has been publicly expresed several times by the president of Bar-Ilan university, Tel-Aviv.

Today I find in Yedi'oth, Israeli daily, an article by another academic member of Bar-Ilan, re the murder of Israel's prime-minister Rabin 10-yrs ago. He notes that the murderer is always referred to as a 'religious person' and the murder as having been 'religiously motivated'. He implicitly yet clearly complains that this stains the "Jewish Religious Identity" and he posits that as murder is a blatant violation of a Jewish religion commandment the murderer should not be regarded a religious Jew, and he suggests that therefore the murderer should not be referred to as a religious Jew…

I am sure that it has not even occurred to either of the above academicians that the stand he expresses/posits is in any way arrogant and hypocritical. They undoubtedly present their stands with sincere conviction. This is all the more disturbing. No end to arrogant hypocrisy…